Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

We aren't the power we once were financially because of our own fucking retarded policies. DJT is changing that. Say what you want about him but he does know his shit financially unlike shit for brains BHO.

[THE_WIZARD_]

The bottom line is that the UN has been an obstacle in shaping a world order favorable to free, democratic principles and nations that embrace them

EFZ...mostly due to the world's hatred of our success/resources/etc. In spite of the fact we hand out trillions of dollars to these ungrateful pigs. Fuck the UN.

[THE_WIZARD_]

WE'RE AMERICANS!!

[Jeff Buchanan]

We aren't the power we once were financially because of our own fucking retarded policies. ......

........fostered by the US penchant for seeking the world's approval through the UN for most of what this country undertakes as a matter of our combined security and economic interests.

I'm not ready to give DJT credit for changing this because I agree with Hack here that he and his administration have merely learned how to use the news cycle to their advantage.

I am, however, a proponent of the use of hard power to achieve political objectives. I'm pretty sure DJT buys in to that approach and that's a good thing just stop dicking around with and/or through the UN. I think talent's approach of not completely withdrawing is the right approach but the US needs to neuter that operation by cutting most of the funding the US provides. The US has been down this road in the past and failed to extricate itself from this shit hole so, I'm not confident DJT will lead the way to do so.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Spineless leadership on both sides of the aisle has led us to where we are now. We tried to play Mr. Nice Guy to the world while getting things shoved down our throats. Fuck that shit. Time for Alice Cooper to chime in...

[AlabamAlum]

The Mighty Bobcats are playing the schoolyard bully. Lunch money has been taken and the atomic wedgie is forthcoming.

[hack]

Powell Doctrine probably a relevant factor in your '91 analysis, Jeff.

And, look - sloganeering and flag-waving side, it's not as if the US has been the good guy in all of these instances throughout the years. We triggered a coup in Iran simply because they were gonna make most of the money off their own oil. We approach foreign policy sometimes as a the process of getting other countries to say uncle and like it, as if we are the only ones entitled to any pride or dignity.

[THE_WIZARD_]

...we could always go bomb a baby formula factory again like WJC...

[hack]

And Obama used drone strikes more than Bush. It's not about partisan bullshit. It was no different under Clinton than any other president. The US is the world power. It can and does shit on others. Not to say that it shouldn't be doing that. When you are the world power you are going to do a bunch of things that aren't morally right but are in the interest of your country, so you fabricate some reason and move foreward. One thing the US might want to do though is balance out that shit. Maybe with a little more carrot and a little less stick -- like, say, not being outraged at the less than 1% of the budget that goes to foreign aid -- others might not be so prone to cast meaningless symbolic votes at the UNGA. To act wounded that they do that is kinda silly. To expect gratitude is either the height of folly and a display of an extreme ignorance of reality and human nature, or it's just another thing Wiz does.

[hack]

I don't know the answer to your question about the '91 war, AA. It's a legit question. Jeff shared his thoughts. IMO Powell was a very strong voice for limited objectives and clearing out as soon as they were accomplished. Suggesting that what was done in '03 would have gone much better in '91 is an interesting idea. I would have much preferred that to happen under Bush 41 than Bush 43, even with Cheney as secretary of defense. The room for corruption presumably would have been much smaller under 41, who took foreign policy seriously. And it was a time when the idea of contracting out core government functions on inflated-value no-bid contracts had far less traction. Presumably the goal would have been limited to regime change and national building, instead of adding in pockets lining. But all that's a counterfactual.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Powell Doctrine probably a relevant factor in your '91 analysis, Jeff.

And, look - sloganeering and flag-waving side, it's not as if the US has been the good guy in all of these instances throughout the years. We triggered a coup in Iran simply because they were gonna make most of the money off their own oil. We approach foreign policy sometimes as a the process of getting other countries to say uncle and like it, as if we are the only ones entitled to any pride or dignity.

The 1991 Gulf War was a lot different than 2003 too. Iraq had literally invaded another country. I mean, even China and the Soviet Union were in favor of military intervention. I'm not sure which countries, if any, were sticking up for Iraq.

[hack]

But they sure did value the legitimacy the UN gave the whole thing. They tried mighty hard to get it again in '03.

[THE_WIZARD_]

They tried mighty hard to get it again in '03.

yeah it's kinda like getting your wife's approval to go out playing cards with the guys...it's nice to have but you're gonna do it anyway...

[hack]

My wife tells me that if Mrs. Wiz will be there to serve us drinks wearing in a French maid outfit, then she trusts that I will not succumb to temptation.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Powell Doctrine probably a relevant factor in your '91 analysis, Jeff.

Correct and retrospectively I can't endorse it as sound. OTH, even though I might soft sell it or not sell it all now. My view is that at the time, the US and the ME would have been much better off following the course of action I laid out in my original post.

it's not as if the US has been the good guy in all of these instances throughout the years. We triggered a coup in Iran simply because they were gonna make most of the money off their own oil. We approach foreign policy sometimes as a the process of getting other countries to say uncle and like it, as if we are the only ones entitled to any pride or dignity.

You know, I'm not sure of this anymore. While traveling in South America I've read both sides of this debate where the peoples of this continent are involved. There is room for legitimate debate on a case by case basis when the two sides of it can talk reasonably. That's not often the case. I worry about the implications of retrospection knowing outcomes though.

In almost all poicy implementation, there's always some degree of blow-back. I don't think US administrations since Vietnam have handled it well. In my view, that's because we seek unjustifiable approval of what we do. I'm not for that and I don't think DJT is either.... and that may be the only thing I like about him.